Christmas not part of Christmas

In what has to be one of the most absurd decisions, the city of Chicago forced the Christkindlmarket Chicago to remove the upcoming film, The Nativity Story, from the list of sponsors.

Here’s how the list of sponsors used to look:

New Line Cinema, the company behind the movie, says they are “stunned.”

We don’t understand why our sponsorship would be rejected for religious reasons, particularly considering the fact that our film details the story that inspired the holiday season that the Christkindlmarket was created to celebrate.

Irreligious commenters, are you offended by seeing an advertisement of a movie about the birth of Jesus? If Wiccans can have their symbol on a tombstone paid for by the government, why can a major Hollywood studio not advertise a movie about Christmas at a Christmas festival?

60 Responses

Am I offended by Christian advertising? No. Although I'm not sure there is any comparrison at all between the Wiccan religious symbol and this advertisement. But advertisements bought and sold should be exactly that. Unless, of course, other religions were refused.

It is discrimination. Period. I cannot believe it. Although I don't know why I shouldn't, after all the religious aspect of things are beginning to be viewed as "dangerous" to our way of life by MANY people. They prolly would have been fine with any of the cussing-and-violence-and-sex saturated rated R films. (Pure irony to me.) I am in no rush to see "The Nativity Story" myself. My family and friends do not celebrate christmas as the birth of Christ. We celebrate family and love and giving with many of the "pagan" traditions, because they are actually our long standing family traditions. And I adore Dickens "A Christmas Carol" it is one of my favoritest stories ever. I tend toward the "bah humbug" myself… but I think it is because my birthday is so close to the holiday. :-p

Louis, how you do argue against discrimination when you enjoy seeing applied to others with whom you disagree? If discrimination is something that should be eliminated, then it should be eliminated, not reserved for those we think deserve it.

Just because there's a German word for enjoying the misfortune of others does not make it right or make it any less hypocritical to call for the end of discrimination in one case, yet acknowledge discrimination in another case and find it totally acceptable. That is a sad way to live Louis – to wish or enjoy the harm or pain of others, even if you feel they have done you wrong.

Aaron, Better question: why do you objection to Louis's enjoyment of alleged discrimination against you when you are constantly suggesting that Louis be legally discriminated against? Once again, we the not religious are asked to take the moral high ground, while you get to have your cake and eat it too. Come on now.

Because I specifically said that Louis acknowledges this as discrimination and still rejoices over it. I do not see opposing a court mandated redefinition of marriage as being discriminatory. Now, I understand that we disagree on this issue and that is partly my point. While we disagree that my not supporting gay marriage is discrimination, no one here has disagreed that the post subject is discrimination, yet Louis feels it is acceptable to enjoy that. I don't wish harm on gay people. You may or may not believe that, but I believe that my positions are ultimately positive. I wouldn't support them if I thought they were expressly harmful. Yet, this is a case where Louis says he enjoys seeing Christians discriminated against. He acknowledges the wrong being done, but accepts it because it against someone he sees as his "enemy." Also, lets be clear. I never said this was a discrimination against me. I reject the whole argument that one case like this impacts the entire population personally. I don't feel any negative effect from this, neither do others when a member of their "group" is discriminated against across the country. It can be a sign of the times and could lead to something bigger, but individuals removed from the situation don't personally feel the discrimination.

Aaron, All we're (I'm?) saying that Christians call their opposition to gay marriage "not discrimination" on a regular basis. "We don't hate gays," they say, "we just don't want them to be legally protected in the same way that we demand for ourselves." (Or, if you're Seeker, "I love gays, but they're disgusting sinners who are lucky that they aren't jailed for their crimes against humanity. Let's leave things the way they are.") But as soon as you witness some sort of Christian discrimination, the whole damned country is supposed to come grinding to halt to rectify the terrible anti-Christian whatever that has occurred. I just find it questionable that you seem to support continuing discrination against gays while objecting to Louis supporting discrimination against Christians. I don't see how you can separate the two.

1) I don't believe opposition to gay marriage equals discrimination. 2) Louis admits this is discrimination then says he is fine with it because its against Christians. 3) I didn't say the country should come to a screaming halt. I didn't even say anyone should do anything about this case at all. I just wanted to point it out as a case of discrimination against something based on the ties to Christianity. I never asked for the government to step in and force Chicago to allow The Nativity to advertise. I just thought it was interesting that a city can and would do this.

Aaron answers his own objection. He still doesn't see anything wrong with keeping gays from their constitutional right to equal treatment. He thinks keeping gays away from forming and protecting their families is NOT discrimination? This is prima facie evidence of discrimination. No wonder I take satisfaction from seeing xians whine about the mild forms of discrimination they supposedly suffer, especially since they are the prime agents of anti-gay discrimination in this country, and monotheism in the world. It gives me a certain joy to know that they are feeling the same sting – however mild – that gays have felt at their hands for centuries. Only when xians are legislated against, thrown out of their homes, imprisoned, put in mental hospitals, made fun of and threatened and beaten and driven to suicide on a daily basis, will I be fully satisfied.

I'm with Louis. If you don't actually believe that legally rendering gay couples as second class within American borders counts as discrimination, I'm not entirely sure that you understand the meaning of the word.

–It gives me a certain joy to know that they are feeling the same sting – however mild – that gays have felt at their hands for centuries.– It didnt sting me. Or Aaron. Sorry. No joy for you. :) Like Aaron said, just because he pointed out that it was discriminatory didnt mean that he was demanding they change. Actually I think they have every right to pick and choose who they want on their ads. And discriminate as much as they want.

So calling her names is your way of educating her about gays? Your cynicism, in Lawanda's case, is premature. I can tell you for certain that she is much more intellectually curious, open and honest than many people who I have seen you being polite toward on this blog. Since the unfortunate event to which you refer occurred, I don't see where she has been blatantly rude to you or gays. You can say it's not any of my business and you would be right. But sorry to disappoint you, you're being boorish.

Only when xians are legislated against, thrown out of their homes, imprisoned, put in mental hospitals, made fun of and threatened and beaten and driven to suicide on a daily basis, will I be fully satisfied. But because I don't believe in changing the definition of marriage, I am the evil one here. I don't think Louis is "evil." But I find it so odd that because I don't view opposition to court mandated gay marriage as forcing gays to be second class citizens, I am therefore the bad one or the one who does not understand what discrimination means. If gays are currently beaten, threatened, imprisoned, thrown out of their homes, etc. all for being gay then that is discrimination and I am fully against that. I would support Louis, Sam and whoever in calling for a change to that. I think gays should be able to visit in the hospital, leave the estate to, or whatever else. I don't believe in opening up marriage for anything other than the thousands of years stand. Call that discrimination if you want. Again, did I "whine" about this. No, I just brought it up and asked if non-Christians would apply the same standards as in the Wiccan case. I said the dismissal of the ad was absurd, but I made no calls for lawsuits or the courts to get involved. Yet the evil Christians are the ones who whine or force the country to come to a grinding hault to right our wrongs. When did I miss all that? But regardless of Louis's name-calling or any one else's feelings, I continue to resolve to give anti-Christian gays and anyone else quarter here to discuss their opinions and to be as a hospitable host as I can.

I'm not discriminating. Of course you're not Aaron. You just believe that gays should be second class citizens when it comes to their relationships. In every regard, you and gay citizens should be equal, except when you're in love. Then you want to make sure that gays remain lesser citizens than you. But that isn't discrimination, no…Hey people, there's 1000s of years of history here. Sure there is, if by 1000s of years of history, you mean at least as much human history pointing toward polygamy. History seems to be awfully convenient for you in this case.I supported your Wicca thing, so I wonder if you're capable of supporting mine… We long ago established in this thread that we do support you in this instance. Louis enjoys when Christians are discriminated against (I do too) because the rest of us have been on receiving end of Christian nonsense forever. Funny that when you get that bad taste in your mouth, you bring it up. We bring up obvious anti-gay discrimination, and retreat immediately into the same, "It isn't discrimination, it's just that gay relationships are worth less than mine."

It's called "my blog" so of course I am going to bring up something that I think is interesting. Sam, you bring up things about Christians being "eeeevvvil" on your blog all the time. First we hear the argument that Christians are not discriminated against, I bring up a case and now it's stop whining so much, of course this is discrimination, but we enjoy it because you do it too. It's endless. We will get nowhere in rehashing the continous debate. I do not regard gays as second class citizens. I do not think they are less than me. But I also do not believe that marriage should be changed because you think it should. Again, that makes me a horrible, hypocritical person in your eyes. I understand that. The debate goes around and around. I do not agree with everything you say and demand, so I am hypocritical. I point out an instance when a Christian film was undeservedly discriminated against, but you enjoy that and say that i am whining or asking the world to come to an end, even though I never said the government or anyone else should do anything about this. So let me get this straight – you support and enjoy discrimination against Christians because they oppose gay marriage? Wow, that makes sense and seems to have support from all kinds of principle. What if I opperated that way? How many times and ways would I be lambasted here? I don't even want to imagine what would happen to seeker if he said something like that.Double standards are okay – as long as we have them.

I love how xians excuse themselves from the discrimination charge. Somehow, because something has been one way for "thousands of years," it must always be that way. Slavery, for example, or the divine right of kings. It all boils down to that argument. No wonder I despise that religion. As to being boorish: TS.

Aaron, we enjoyed the irony of the film being discriminated against, when coming from you. But if you asked us to imagine our ideal society, and that discrimination against the Christian film? It wouldn't have occurred. Do we support legal discrimination of Christians? Of course not. Do we believe that Christians getting married, even if fifty percent or more ends in divorce, needs to be discriminated against? Of course we don't. We believe that marriage ought to be available to gays and straights alike. We've been remarkably consistent in that point, because we believe that the love shared by gays is equal to love shared by your and your wife. Meanwhile, although you're against discrimination, although you don't believe that gays are less than you, although you don't believe that the love shared by gays to be any different than the love shared by you and your wife, still insist that gays not be allowed to marry. You're the one taking a conflicting position Aaron, not us.

Homosexual relationships are usually based on one thing, sex. Any relationship based on that is not love. I'll take this a step furthur. If you want to get married for benefits, great sex, to make a point, etc. you are getting married for the wrong reason. Marriage (which was created by God, so if you don't believe in Him then why get married) should be a permanent decision between two Christians to spend the rest of their lives serving the other. That is marriage. I love my husband and even though he aggrevates me at times and we do fight, there is no "get of marriage free card" we can hand each other. That is marriage. Not for benefits, not for political and social reasons but because we wanted to share the rest of our lives together and create a family and to glorify God in our relationship. Me saying that I don't personally think two men or women should get married is irrevelant. I don't think anyone who has not decided to make a true commitment to the relationship in a Christian marriage should get married.

Marriage should be a permanent decision between two Christians to spend the rest of their lives serving the other. That is marriage. Wait, whaaa?!?! Think about this. Marriage is an institution not limited to Christians. People get married all the time who don't give a hoot about the Christian God.

Well, it took about one hour of fun before our new situation was clearly defined: Cineaste, Louis and I on the side of right, and good, and America, and Aaron, Seeker and Pam on the other side. My parents have been married for 38 years yesterday Pam; neither are Christian. Neither attend church. Is that worth nothing to you, as evidence of the staying power of love regardless of religion? And nevermind that, but describing gay relationships as being about nothing more than sex? Is that based on ANYTHING AT ALL? Or do you just dislike gays? It's one thing to disagree with gay marriage, but quite another to believe that they love differently than you do.

yes, it is for real. My sister got married last year, I was happy for her but she had already been living with him for over five years they owned a house together, his company covered her on his insurance. The reason they got married was because she believed that that was the moral thing to do. She wanted kids and didn't want the children to be born out of wedlock? The moral thing to do. Who sets morals? She learned hers from a Christian family and community. If you say who gives a rip about morals and don't care what the world thinks, why get married? I got married to Aaron because according to our religion for us to spend our lives together and create a beautiful family that is what we had to do.

No, she is not joking. Christians believe that God created marriage, what esle would we believe. It would also flow from that concept that Christian marriages where God is honored would therefore be the best kind and most fulfilling. Where my wife and I may disagree, I'm not sure, is that marriage is an institution that God established but non-Christians can participate in it and enjoy it, just not to the ultimate level that God intended (unfortunately, most Christians and not don't experience marriage to the fullest because of our sin and selfishness). It's just like life itself. Jesus said He came to give life and life abundantly. That abundant life He talked about can only be found in Him. That doesn't mean that non-Christians can't have life or even can't enjoy life, but it does mean that unless you know Jesus you cannot experience life to the fullest because you are not living the way you were created to live. That's the core message of Christianity. God blesses us with things, but we cannot find ultimate meaning until we experience those things the way He intended it.

(marriage) which was created by God, so if you don’t believe in Him then why get married. This is completely unreasonable. The problem is, there is nothing I or anyone can say to you that could show you why. That is the nature of unreasonable faith. Why should I bother reasoning with someone who won’t be reasoned with? All I can do in the face of such an assertion is pity the person who made it and lament the religion that propagates it. I’m overwhelmed by such a powerful display of ignorance, intolerance and myopia of perspective.

I am sorry if I offended anyone. I was not trying to be hard on homosexuals, I have a boy from my hometown that is gay and I love him just as much as anyone. It is my opinion and not that of any one else that MOST people in same-sex relationships have physical relationships before marriage. Anytime, you have sex outside of marriage in my opinion it is immoral. Whether it is a boy and girl or a boy and boy, I care not. I am not against homosexuals I am against sin. Again, I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. I was just giving my POV and sometimes I put my mouth before my brain. My hubby did warn you of that. I just wanted everyone to know that I think marriages should not be controlled by the government at all. It should be each church's decision to decide what they want in their church. I believe that marriage is a religious union not a government one. That's my perspective.

It is also a civil union though, because it is basically how a country can keep track of its citizenry….. And if you are legally married, your kids automatically get the husbands last name for that reason. And in the bible when it refers to legitimate children, it is refering to legitimacy by law and nothing else. :)

Government keeps track of us through SS#s in today's world. They don't need marriage. Secondly, the child doesn't automatically take dads last name. The mom can write whatever she wants down as the childs name. I could have given my child the last name of Rochester if I had the inclination. Third, then why do we still call children concieved outside of marriage but born inside marriage illigitimate? Not me, all children are precious.. I only call them blessings.

Pam, maybe I over reacted as well. Please just consider this. You said…"Marriage should be a permanent decision between two Christians to spend the rest of their lives serving the other. That is marriage." and…but should they? who created marriage? why do we need it? Why get married? Marriage as an institution, predates Christianity. Christianity adopted the marriage institution from older civilizations. This means marriage is not the sole province of Christianity, it is an institution common to almost all religions worldwide. The stats are… 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion 2. Islam: 1.3 billion 3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 4. Hinduism: 900 million 5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million 6. Buddhism: 376 million 7. primal-indigenous: 300 million 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million 9. Sikhism: 23 million 10. Juche: 19 million 11. Spiritism: 15 million 12. Judaism: 14 million 13. Baha'i: 7 million 14. Jainism: 4.2 million 15. Shinto: 4 million 16. Cao Dai: 4 million 17. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million 18. Tenrikyo: 2 million 19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million 20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 21. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand 22. Scientology: 500 thousand Non-Christians out number Christians by a large margin. Could you really justify yourself going up to each one of the billions of Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, and Buddhist couples and telling them, "Why should you get married?" "You're not Christian so why bother even getting married?" The rational that "real" marriage belongs only to Christians is unreasonable and that is what I was trying to convey.

I'm not sure where this conversation is going, but it doesn't seem like anywhere good. So what I'll say is that I'm with Cineaste: marriage has LONG existed outside of Christianity, and the notion that marriage is a Christian practice which us non-Christians are merely allowed to participate in is beyond ludicrous. This is again the problem with (Some) Christians in the United States. You think it's all about you, and making sure you're comfortable, and you're satisfied, and you're protected from that which you don't want to tolerate. So you oppose gay marriage in part because it makes you squeemish, because it allegedly offends your religious sensibilities. Nevermind that your religion offends my sensibilities. It seems like you can disagree with a practice without depriving a person of the right to do so. For instance, I disagree with you going to church, but I don't oppose your legal right to do so (even if I do believe that church attendance is bad for America, and particularly bad for the children). So why on Earth can't you simply look the other way on gay marriage? Better yet, why can't the government simply confer civil unions onto those that want them, straight and gay, and churches can figure out marriage? Isn't that acceptable?

Okay, my wife called me here at work and apologized again. She said, "You did warn them about me." She is a very fiery and passionate person (one of the reasons I love her and married her). While I tend to think things through and mull over comments for an extended period of time, she just blurts out the first thing that runs through her mind. I drive her crazy because it takes me forever to say something or share my opinion. She drives me crazy because often she says things that she doesn't really mean and that can hurt a lot. The main point that she was trying to get across in the midst of everything else was that marriage should be the function of the church with as little government involvement as possible. On that point, she should find much agreement. I'm not saying this to "cover" for her. I'm saying this to explain who she is, why she says things the way she does (she has to live with me and raise two boys afterall) and what she meant to say. One thing I would ask is that you please do not attack her. Go after her opinions, fine that is fair game. But please do not go after her personally. If you want to attack personally or name call, do it to me. I know some of you may want to or feel its warranted, but please don't. I don't think anyone else here has a spouse or significant other who comments, but if you do I would expect everyone to treat them kindly.

One thing I would ask is that you please do not attack her. Go after her opinions, fine that is fair game. But please do not go after her personally. If you want to attack personally or name call, do it to me. I really was attacking Pam's statement that "marriage is between two Christians" more than anything else. So, sorry guys if I got a little miffed, but you must admit as well that the statement is provocative.

My last point is in agreement with your wife's position, as long as your wife is willing to tolerate the ghastly notion that loving and committed couples be legally allowed to, yknow, visit each other in the hospital, or inheret each other's estates/pensions, or whatever else.

Cineaste, I know you were going after her position. Nothing up to this point has crossed "the line." It was more a preemptive request than anything else. Sam, she has no problem with that at all, as far as I know. In fact, that is one that I have long supported. I think those right should be expanded to gay couples and even farther. As to the marriage predates Christianity – not if Christianity is true. If the claims of Christianity are true then it dates to the beginning.

What Pam wrote was extremely offensive (gay relationships are based on nothing but sex). I was personally very offended and hurt. This is the typical hetero version of gay people and our relationships: animalistic and perverse. It is the brutal face of xian bigotry. No wonder I'm boorish and rude and insensitive: nothing else works, nothing else is appropriate. I am sick and tired of facing this disgusting evil every day of my life. Aaron may put a moderate face on it but it's still the same: ugly and evil. And it supports my contention that xianity is a sham and a cheat.

Yes, but considering the overwhelming mountain of facts which indicate that Christianity is LESS than true – fossils for instance – there seems to be some evidence that maybe Christianity isn't the rightest thing that the world has ever known. Incidentally, Louis makes a strong point in regard to Pam's comment. Reducing gays toward this animalistic existence seems unbelievably unfair, and downright crude. To imply that most gay relationships don't mean anything more than sexual activity is a cruel comment. I don't think Pam meant for it to be cruel necessarily, but it was, and it is indicitive of how MANY Christians regard gays. I'll just assume that neither of you are friends with gays, nor do you spend any time with gays, so of course this belief would be able to percolate. But to see it written as it was, to reduce gays so quickly and easily…it's troubling.

No, no, no…xians ALWAYS bring up the fact that they personally know gay people and how much they "love" them (see Pam's comment above). This somehow exonerates them from their obvious bigotry. It gives them a shield behind which they can continue to dehumanize us. If our relationships are only based on lust and perversity, if we cannot form true bonds based on love, trust, responsibility and mutual affection, why then we must be a danger to families and undeserving of marriage, for marriage is reserved for human beings and their relationships, not animals. In a way I have to thank Pam: she opened a new area of understanding for me. Xianity is for human beings, not animals. And that's why gays have been treated so poorly, so brutally, by it for centuries, why its holy book is so condemning – we aren't really human. Deep in the darkest recesses of their minds that's what they believe. We're merely animals who live mindlessly for lust and who prey upon the innocent humanity around us. Oh sure, they put a moderate face on it most of the time. Unless caught off guard, that is. It's like the Catholic church saying we're welcome while condemning us as immoral sickies and denying us communion. Xianity is, at its base, a political organization dedicated to maintaining the heterosexual hegemony through power and mind-control. This goes double for Islam, btw.

O my gosh, all the gay beatings in this country are SO OUT OF HAND!!!! Run Louis RUN! (think Forrest Gump hehe) And yes, I have participated in so many of them too. I am a regular ole bigot and I am not afraid to beat people up just because of who they are sleeping with. And the TV, all you ever hear is NO MORE GAYS. NO MORE GAYS. DOWN WITH THE GAYS. THEY ARE SO EVIL! That's the pretty picture you guys are trying to convince yourselves and apparently other people of. But guess what?! That is not a true picture. The only thing you cannot do is get married. I am sure that will change, as it is already. Because, most of what you hear and see in the MEDIA is the total opposite of the picture you try to paint. The media is all about sex, including homosexuality. Trust me, I know, I have to police what my kids watch because I don't particularly care to have my 6 year old girl watch a Victoria's Secret commercial. The people who talk about disapproving of men sleeping with men? They do it at church or they talk about it to each other. Or they do it on their own blogs. And this blog I have never noticed Aaron or seeker saying ANYthing mean about a specific gay person. Not even you Louis! And I am sure they felt like it, cause you, you arent such a nice person. But they dont ever attack you for being gay. Do they approve of your actions? No. But I dont see too many people who are "shacked up" coming on here and yelling at them calling them bigots, even though they are always saying they disapprove that action just as heartily. (In case you really think so, I have never beat ANYONE up or enjoyed seeing anyone get beat up. As a matter of fact, even the gay people I know, they know I disapprove of their actions. And we get along! *gasp* How can it be?!) So anyhow, pardon me if I do not feel sorry for you, because your cause is not lost. The media are taking care of it for you. I would say acceptance of people who sleep with whoever and whatever they want to is at an all time high, actually. Those of us who don't particularly like it can still say so, though. But I am sure you'd like it much better if all the "bigots" would have to shut up.

Lawanda, A couple of points. 1. Of course Aaron and Seeker don't speak of specific gays. To do so would put a human face on that which they so vociferously oppose, Seeker a tad more than Aaron. But leaving gays as a monolithic danger to the American way of life, neither critic ever has to deal with the fact that gays are real, EQUAL citizens in this country. 2. You know why the American marketplace is all about sex? Because Americans are all about sex. They buy it in television shows and in advertisements. If you'd like a country without a free market that rewards consumers for their desires, may I suggest Cuba, or Vietnam. The problem with free markets is that they're free, and that supply ideally meets demand. The average American intensely demands all things sex, and markets try to create the necessary supply. 3. Opposition to gay marriage Lawanda, as we have discussed on numerous occaisons, is ultimately based on gay hatred. Everybody knows that it poses no threat to America; everybody knows that nobody will get hurt; everybody knows that children won't be effected. But those who oppose gay marriage hate gays, and that is reason enough for them. To offer equal recognition of their relationships is too much. One of the most fantastical claims we always have to hear about is this nonsense about gay marriage threatening straight marriage. You know what threatens straight marriage? Divorce. But I don't see Christians advocating Constitutional Amendments banning divorce. Why? Because (Most) Christians don't hate straight people. But gays they hate, and so their marriages they oppose.

2. You know why the American marketplace is all about sex? Because Americans are all about sex. They buy it in television shows and in advertisements. If you'd like a country without a free market that rewards consumers for their desires, may I suggest Cuba, or Vietnam. The problem with free markets is that they're free, and that supply ideally meets demand. The average American intensely demands all things sex, and markets try to create the necessary supply. You make a very good point. Actually it was exactly my point. So why is it that the Americans who do not care to have all the sex all the time flaunted in front of their faces cannot say on their blog that they disapprove of it, without being called a bigot. OVER and OVER. Is it bigotry to not like the way people BEHAVE? Behavior is something a person can control, not like they can't help it. Maybe prude would be a better word, huh? :-pYou know what threatens straight marriage? Divorce. But I don't see Christians advocating Constitutional Amendments banning divorce. Why? Because (Most) Christians don't hate straight people. But gays they hate, and so their marriages they oppose. So did you know there has already been gay divorces too? How long has it been legal now? Two years? But the fact is that people just dont even get married anymore until they are older and on their twenty-fifth partner or so. That is so healthy, isnt it? I am not saying we should have constitutional ammendments to save marriage, personally. I think it will happen on its own in a hundred years more or less, when people get sick of the way their parents and grandparents behave and want to be different. This is where I got the idea that people wait to get married til they have had so many partners and even kids:Cohabitation or Marriage? It kinda made me sad for all the kids whose parents are not together anymore by the time they are 5 years old.

Louis, I agree what she said was hurtful to you and appreciate you not responding toward her personally. The point which she very poorly made was that any relationship that is not within original intent marriage is not living up to the fullest extent that it can be and therefore many are engaged in relationships for benefits be they sex, companionship or inheritance rights. Further more, she argues (me not so much) that marriage should be removed entirely from the government pervue and be placed within the realm of the church. The government can establish their own recognition (civil unions) and confer any rights they want to with that recognition. Louis, you do read way too much into everything (the danger of having a keen literary based mind). Nothing indicates you are a "animal." Nothing within Christianity or the Bible would treat you as such. Yes, Christianity views homosexual sex as immoral, along with a host of other things. Agreed, that many Christians focus too much on that and not on divorce or any of the myriad of sins we are tempted by. Yes, there are Christians that probably do hate gays and there are Christians that probably hate people of other races. It is sad to say that, but it is most likely a fact. But you know what, that is the case for every group of people. The Church should be better, but we still have the same human nature that you do. Many still struggle with overcoming their disdain for anything different. Many find it close to impossible to shake off the ignorance in which they were raised. Yes, it reflect poorly on the faith and even worse reflect poorly on Christ, Himself. But no one is called to believe in and trust 100% the people in the church down the street. No one is called to follow James Dobson. Everything centers around Jesus. We are imperfect followers. I will be the first to grant you that, but we try and we seek and we stumble, but we are trying to do the best we can for Him – to tell others about Him. Sam, you know that I am the one of the first to make fun with you of the "gay agenda" stuff. I see no huge "monolithic" force of gay people swarming the country. I have no problem sharing what I believe with a gay person, because I have no problem with a gay person. I disagree with their lifestyle, but I have tons of friends with which I do the same. I respect and love them, but I simply disagree with them. You continue to go back to the divorce thing and I have talked about that continuously. I agree that currently there is no great threat to marriage than the divorce rate. Most Christian leaders do fight divorce, maybe not as much as they should, but it is a topic that is discussed often. I would venture to guess that Dr. Dobson talks more about that than gay marriage, but the divorce bits get no media attention so you never hear about them. If you ask Christians, I would think the vast majority would be in favor of limiting divorce to avoid situations like Brittney Spears' "marriage" and Kid Rock's "marriage." Gay marriage may very well pose little threat to the institution, but many, after seeing what has happened when Christians did nothing about the changes in divorce, don't want to risk it again.

Aaron, Talking about and proposing legislation to legally restrict are two totally different things, aren't they? Dr. James Dobson can talk all he wants about the dangers of divorce, but it is the alleged dangers of homosexuality which possess him to demand legal discrimination against gays, in all 50 states and then too in the Constitution. The problem here is that you're not questioning Dobson's motives. The man is an outright liar if he claims that he cares about divorce like he cares about gay marriage. He doesn't, or he'd advocate equal legal response to the threat of both. Aaron, what I can understand is why you object to the reality that opposition to gay marriage is based entirely upon hatred of gays. No other explanation makes any sense whatsoever. And as for Lawanda's point, I again note that there is an enormous difference between "disapproving" of somebody's behavior and making that behavior illegal. Again, I disagree with you going to church, because I believe that it is hurting America, but I don't propose making it illegal.

"Yes, there are Christians that probably do hate gays and there are Christians that probably hate people of other races. It is sad to say that, but it is most likely a fact." There are non-christians who do the same. And there are gay people who hate straights as well. And it is sad.

From: "Gays and the Future of Anglicanism: Responses to the Windsor Report" – From the Christian emperor Justinian in the sixth century until the eighteenth century, Christian communities around Europe regularly put homosexuals to death by burning, beheading, flaying, drowning or hanging them. The ancient Christian thinkers Tertullian, Eusebius and John Chrysostom all argued that same sex relations deserve the penalty of death…In medieval Europe, secular laws often invoked the authority of the bible to execute homosexuals. Bologna adopted the death penalty for sodomy in 1259. Padua followed suit in 1329; Venice in 1342; Rome in 1363; Cremona in 1387; Milan in 1476; and Genoa in 1556. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain actively sought out sodomites to be burned. In the hundred and twenty five years after Calvin taught in Geneva, there were thirty burnings, beheadings, drownings, and hangings of homosexuals in that city. Scores of men and boys were hanged for homosexual activity in Georgian England. Before the advent of modernity, women in Europe were also vulnerable to execution if convicted of lesbianism. The history of churches' treatment of gay people has for over a thousand years been a history of hatred, persecution and death. To this day, standard Christian textbooks devoted to moral theology and commenting on homosexuality are usually trite treatises because of their complete silence on the long-standing brutality meted out to homosexuals by churches, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant. For homosexuals, the history of the Christian church has been a kaleidoscope of harrowing horrors. Their fortunes have now changed. Physical violence has mutated into rhetorical violence, although there are still nine countries today where homosexual behavior is punishable by death. The nine countries are identified as Mauritania, Sudan, Afhanistan, Pakistan, the Chechen Republic, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. These are not just laws that are "on the books" but never enforced. As recently as last July, we heard news reports of two Iranian teenage boys who were executed.

"Physical violence has mutated into rhetorical violence, although there are still nine countries today where homosexual behavior is punishable by death." Those countries punish stealing and adultery the same way. Sudan, in fact has the highest number of death sentences in the world. They are not only punishing homosexuals. And they are not correct in their "morals" using the death sentence that way either. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in our country who doesn't find that appalling, even those who "oppose gay marriage". As far as the "rhetorical violence", I can see that on like TBN or some other "religious" networks, possibly. But in the mainstream media, in fact – the rhetoric is more violent towards some "ignorant christians". And on this website, you are the only person who has said remotely violent things to other people while I have been reading. Nobody in our country is lobbying for the right to beat or kill someone just because they are gay. Not even those who view the action of homosexuality as a sin would want that. But those are the people who lobby against changing our laws to make something legal that will not make our country a better place to live, and to reflect something they see as a sin. "And as for Lawanda's point, I again note that there is an enormous difference between "disapproving" of somebody's behavior and making that behavior illegal. Again, I disagree with you going to church, because I believe that it is hurting America, but I don't propose making it illegal." Actually nobody has made it illegal. It just has never been in question. In every system of government that ours was modeled after, same sex marriage has never been an issue before And it never was in our own government either, until now.

I just love the way Lawanda ignores the history of anti-gay violence xianity has indulged in. And, apparently, she sees no connection between this fact and the current anti-gay stance of the vast majority of xianity. Of course, I don't expect hetero xians to understand. It's simply impossible for them to know what it's like. That's why trying to argue the point is pointless: you can't argue with the irrational.